Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Joshua, you're right, this subject has been recycled more times than we can
remember.  What's more, EXACTLY as you wrote back in October 2009, on each
occasion we arrived at the same conclusion, namely that no matter in which
terms we describe our protocol, it will provide what ordinary users of VWs
recognize as interop between their worlds.

In other words, if we have two virtual worlds such as OSgrid and 3rd Rock
Grid, then if those worlds wish it, they could use VWRAP to enable an agent
to teleport from one to the other and to retain avatar properties and assets
after the TP, as one commonly sought example.  The user perspective on this
is extremely simple, and all-important.  It cannot be ignored just because
some document writers profess not to understand the term "virtual world".
(Everyone else does.)

The above kind of interop is either possible with VWRAP or it is not.  The
phrase "no interop BETWEEN virtual worlds" denies the possibility point
blank, and while it's nice to try to smooth it over as an artifact of
terminology, we are faced with diametric opposites here.

While I agree with you entirely that there is (near unanimous) consensus
that we are doing interop between virtual worlds (even if using different
language), the drafts do not reflect that, and as Crista detailed, barely
have any relevance to OpenSimulator-based worlds at all.

As many people have said, we need to fix the language of the drafts so that
it reflects our interop goals clearly, because it fails to do that at the
moment.



Morgaine.







============================

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <[e-mail]
>> > wrote:
>>
>> From what I can tell the drafts do support interoperability between the
>> same *class* of virtual world. The catch is that the language needs to be
>> significantly clearer.
>>
>>
>> That sounds reasonable to me, Jonathan.  I believe that your first
>> sentence reflects everyone's understanding of our goals ever since we formed
>> the working group.  Only now has this odd "no interop between virtual
>> worlds" slant been placed on our goals.
>>
>
> The group's goals are formally described in the charter:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charter/
>
> ... which, based on previous iterations of this discussion, we carefully
> crafted to not try and nail down what a "virtual world" was so as not to
> offend those who have an investment in any particular reading of that term.
>
>
>> Judging by the responses received here, it's clear that everyone else is
>> affirming in one way or another their interest in virtual worlds that
>> interoperate.  I certainly am.  I hope that we can confirm it as a matter of
>> record with the help of the WG Chairs.
>>
>
> I'm having deja vu... no, wait, we have had this discussion before. Here's
> one of my notes from Oct 2009:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00509.html
>  <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00509.html>
> ... which is a response to a thread on exactly the same topic.
>
> At the end of the day, we're attempting to describe protocols that allow
> operators of virtual world services to interoperate such that users can
> control avatars that move through it with the same client code, assuming
> appropriate permissions. That's what's in the charter, and there's never
> been disagreement about that that I'm aware of.
>
> What we've learned from this discussion in previous iterations:
>
> * If you call that scenario "multiple operators, multiple virtual worlds",
> fine. But someone will disagree with your choice of terminology, and be
> unwilling to adopt your terminology.
>
> * If you call that scenario "multiple operators, one virtual world", fine.
> But someone will disagree with your choice of terminology, and be unwilling
> to adopt your terminology.
>
> If you insist on using such terminology, please learn to recognize when you
> are engaged in discussion with someone who uses different terminology and
> either mentally translate or fixate on the scenario and technology, not the
> label.
>
> There is clear consensus on goals (both from pre-charter discussions, the
> chartering itself, and even now if you read the scenarios being discussed in
> this thread and ignore the labels). While attempting to standardize on
> terminology might be a valuable discussion - and is probably within the
> charter for this group, as a means to further the group's goals - please
> recognize that there is a distinction between changing terminology and
> changing scenarios/goals.
>
>